Positioning of the musicians

[docmattc]

Well since Organist suggested it here goes!

What was missing Tsume was the procession by the choir with the ministers into and out of church. This gives the choir a greater feeling of involvement and participation. At least most of the choir can see the altar - at St Anne's cathedral, Leeds the choir could see nothing of the action of the Mass! I have seen a very appreciative comment from Martin Baker about the music at the Mass. One advantage of the choir's position is that the conductor is hidden by a screen and the singing comes from "on high" - the cathedral has the finest acoustic for a choir that I have experienced! It would be interesting to have comments from Brentwood cathedral where the choir also sits in stalls behind the bishop's throne - my experience there was that the arrangement worked well. Let's not forget that Westminster Cathedral was designed for a different liturgy and many of our churches had choir lofts and organs tucked away at the back of the nave. In Brompton oratory the choir is not seen at all. How about a new discussion thread on positioning the musicians?

I think processing would have made me feel even more remote from the congregation and had we have been expected to process at Westminster I probably would have not sung in the choir. As Celebrating the Mass puts it "The choir remains at all times a part of the assembly." I have real problems with choirs that are not a part of the assembly but apart from the assembly. This runs the risk of the Mass becoming a concert, and I've been in several churches where this has felt the case (but given the quality of singing I would have asked for my money back if it had been! )

The language used at Westminster (not by SSG) at the Mass could easily have given the impression that the congregation should listen and not join in: It was said that we "sang for... " and "music was sung by..." But surely we were leading the congregation in their singing, not doing it for them! Catholic Congregations don't as a rule sing well (See article on Marty Haugen in this week's Tablet) and anything that could possibly undermine them should be avoided at all costs. I've stopped our announcer saying "John Smith will be singing the psalm" and got them so announce "...leading the psalm" for just this reason.

As regards positioning of musicians, we need to consider the position dictated by the acoustics of pre-VCII buildings versus the ideal position if we weren't constrained by practicalities. I play organs both in a loft and in a (very shallow) transept. Of the two the acoustics are much better from the loft, but I can't hear the congregation whom I am accompanying and don't feel in the least a part of the congregation. From the transept I can see the congregation (not the backs of their heads), hear them and feel part of the community. The choir sit next to the organ here facing the opposite transept but on a slight diagonal towards the congregation. Its not ideal as there is a clear separation between them and the rest of the congregation (which loosely I could justify via Musicam Sacram "[the choir] is part of the whole congregation, and that it fulfills a special role" but in an ideal world I'd like them to be singing as a body facing in the same direction as the rest of the congregation and on the same level as them.

Where we are constrained to put musicians apart from the congregation, we need to make every effort in other ways to make sure they feel (and are seen as) a part of them too.

[organist]

Thanks for rising to the challenge! It's true that the large congregation at the Saturday 6 p.m. Mass do not sing well despite the efforts of a cantor and excellent organists and the provision of a leaflet with music. I think the building itself inhibits people because it is so vast. When singing in the congregation one feels very isolated. It doesn't stop me singing out because I want to sing! Many of the congregation are visitors. Hence the use of plainchant Gloria and alleluia and the smae English Mass setting every week. I still think there should be a different Mass setting for a season.
Yes the choir at the cathedral are separate from the people and many people go tot he service to hear them. One can still fully participate by praying as one listens! If our leading of the singing of the people doesn't uplift them, we should seriously consider giving up!

[docmattc]

Many of the congregation are visitors. Hence the use of plainchant Gloria and alleluia and the same English Mass setting every week. I still think there should be a different Mass setting for a season.

In any parish with a congregation predominantly of visitors, the same Mass setting week after week is not noticed by the visitors, but makes life very boring for the regulars. A transient congregation cannot logically be used as a justification for consistency in Mass setting when by definition their very transience means they won't notice. It can only be used as an excuse for never bothering to explore other options. A different setting for each season is a very good idea and I always do this to try and 'brand' a season.
Whatever the liturgical purists think about them, there is an argument for responsorial settings with such highly transient congregations. This ensures that everyone can take a full, conscious active part- they require no advance knowledge.
As mentioned in another thread, there are 2 non-latinate generations now. (I am only familiar with some Latin because the parish priest where I attended primary school in the 70s said Mass each week in Latin with his back to us- gripping stuff for a 6 year old!) Whether we feel the loss of Latin is a good or bad thing, there is a very real consideration that plainsong unites the congregation in their common bewilderment rather than in their common song.

One can still fully participate by praying as one listens! If our leading of the singing of the people doesn't uplift them, we should seriously consider giving up!

I agree fully, but its easy to fall into the performance trap using the first sentence as a justification and forgetting that the key is in the second. Our leading of the singing should be uplifting. There is lots of room for choir solos, but lets not loose sight (as is the case in my parents' parish) that certain pieces belong to the congregation by right.

[contrabordun]

A transient congregation cannot logically be used as a justification for consistency in Mass setting when by definition their very transience means they won't notice.

Except that not all the members of the congregation are transient, so if those who aren't do know the setting inside out, then they will find it easier to sustain, and lead.

very real consideration that plainsong unites the congregation in their common bewilderment rather than in their common song.

but this is not a relevant argument against doing plainsong. If plainsong is 'what we should be doing' (different conversation), then sets some parameters about the practicalities of how to (re)introduce it. Otherwise, by definition, nobody could ever do anything for the first time.

In fact, if it is true that we now have 2 generations who don't know any plainsong, then, given what Sacrosanctum Concilium had to say about Gregorian Chant, that would itself be rather a strong argument in favour of doing some more of it.

[Merseysider]

The Powers That Be (and some that would like to be) have been encouraging us to sing chant since 1903 – arguably because, for half that time, there wasn't much else which congregations could sing. Either we've all been incredibly stubborn and ignored the instructions or it just isn't going to work in a pastoral situation.

I know that chant would not be welcomed by our congregation. Half of them are rather elderly and loved the transition to English – the one or two items we've sung in Latin (including Taizé music) have received most criticism from the older folk.

Which brings me to muse on the fact that much of the support for Latin, chant, smells and bells seems to come from the younger generation.

Could this be anything to do with the number of orthodox-looking clergy coming out of the seminaries – birettas and lace are appearing over the parapet. And while I believe in "live and let live"....

Well, I love our liturgy as it is. I love the music of Marty Haugen and the Thomas More Group. I've been a conformist all my life but if the whiffs of smoke currently coming from the Vatican should turn into flame I'll most definitely be a rebel.

If chant works in your parishes then use it. But also let's see and hear the evidence that it does. Even when, as a child, we sang De Angelis and Cum Jubilo I don't remember the congregation raising the roof as they do when they sing Farrell's Eucharistic Acclamations. And I don't remember them smiling as much as they do when they sing Walker's Missa Festiva.

And I've just broken New Year resolution Number 13 – not to get into debates with people with whom I disagree – just because I know I'm right!

[organist]

I'm pretty broad minded. I love some of the chant and the Byrd 4 part mass especially the Agnus Dei, Thomas More group settings, children's settings (McGrail and Farrell) and Anglican settings like Darke in E and Wood in the Phrygian mode. There's a place for everything. Next Sunday we are singing Stanford's sublime Lamb of God because it fits the theme of the Sunday and there is no finer setting in English in my view.
Yes I do want people to participate and sing but the choir must have their role as well. To come back to the original point of this thread, the choir must feel part of the whole People of God. It is an amazing moment to be processing in the cathedral before a big celebration and hear the choir sing the chant of the day. And we can join in this in the parishes too - why not sing the chant for Candlemas or Pange lingua on Maundy Thursday? If necessary do it in English. Why not sing Veni sancte Spiritus as the sequence at Pentecost and Victimae paschali at Easter and Christus vincit for Christ the King,etc. But here again we need trained musicians to form and lead choirs. I too worry, Merseysider, about conservative young priests. I don't want to go backwards. I want a church which is looking forwards and outwards not contemplating the glories of the past! And I want a church where people can pray and explore their spirituality. Music cna help or hinder this so easily.

[gwyn]

It's reassuring, when reading the forum threads, to appreciate the breadth of musical taste within. Be it bells-and-smells, Haughan, Palestrina, Latin and English, Farrell, Gregorian chant, Darke and so on, somewhere there will be a parish where differing musical styles and traditions sit nicely together in many and varied combinations.

Blessed is the liturgical musician who can mix and match styles, for he will be both loved and despised by the same people at once. (Phelopians 3:7)

[docmattc]

A transient congregation cannot logically be used as a justification for consistency in Mass setting when by definition their very transience means they won't notice.

Except that not all the members of the congregation are transient, so if those who aren't do know the setting inside out, then they will find it easier to sustain, and lead.

Absolutely, perhaps I really meant monotony rather than consistency. I'm not suggesting one could do 52 different settings a year, but a little variety, having 3 or 4 settings under the belt for instance, helps in preventing stagnation, which is certainly not what we want in the Eucharistic Acclamations.

I agree that there in a worrying increase conservatism along with a pre VCII attitude among some younger clergy. I heard of a young curate recently telling his congregation he was there to govern them! Along with this rise in 'lace and birettas' could easily come a loss of the vision of the Council with respect to us laity.

I too want a church which is looking forwards and not contemplating the glories of the past, not least because nostalgia isn't all it used to be.

We're definitely off topic now!

[organist]

We are not really off topic because it's all about the choir's participation and role and how we see ourselves! I was brought up to always do the best I can but I have learnt some of my limitations as I have got older. Things are not as black and white as when I was young! I am even contemplating performing Stainer's Crucifixion which I said I would never do! It's not the music which is pretty saccharine it's the text!
Gwyn I loved your Phelopians quote - how very true! Being all things to all men and inclusive is never easy. I do think some variety is needed - a Mass setting for a season is good. We are currently using "Sing to God a song of glory" to "Angels from the realms" as the Gloria and I can sense the choir are fed up with it after only 2 weeks. BUT I think the congregation should have a chance to join in too! The same goes for the Alleluia - I used to use a great variety of them - a different one every week but I'm not sure if was a good policy. One used to get so little feedback from people (not like Merseysider who seems to know everyone!). I suppose it's some compensation when people say they missed me when I wasn't playing!

[Merseysider]

One used to get so little feedback from people (not like Merseysider who seems to know everyone!).

That's because – as my name suggests – I'm on Merseyside. People up here say what they think. For the incomer it's hard to accept that people are quite so honest until you realise that, having had their say, they'll invite you to dinner or buy you a pint with absolutely no sulks or grudge.

I suppose it's some compensation when people say they missed me when I wasn't playing!

which means they love you.

[asb]

I suppose it's some compensation when people say they missed me when I wasn't playing!

I have a 90 year old deputy, who misses cues, mangles hymns beyond recognition, and plays the most depressing voluntaries. Our PP always says he's glad when I'm back, but apparently my deputy has difficulty getting away from church whenever he plays due to the number of people queuing up to thank him.....! They never say a word to me, apart from if the church is cold (for my sins, i am "heating monitor" as no one else can work the timer on thre boiler!)

[Merseysider]

I do want people to participate and sing but the choir must have their role as well

Why?

I always think of the choir as the stained glass – all we need for a church is a fairly simple building with specific furnishing. We don't need stained glass but, when when added, it brings beauty and warmth.

Similarly, we don't need a choir. All we need is the assembly and someone to start the singing. Once that's happened the choir can add harmonies and descants. But, in reality, there is little more to its role.

[contrabordun]

Similarly, we don't need a choir.

well, yes, but it depends on what you mean by 'need'.

All we need is the assembly and someone to start the singing.

Sure, on any given Sunday, that works fine, but how do you keep it going indefinitely? because we certainly need someone else to start the singing when the first person is away. and maybe another someone to accompany, so that the one starting the singing doesn't feel too exposed (it happens). and then after we've been singing the same thing for seven hundred consecutive Sundays the assembly may get bored of it (this happens too) and would like something different, so for a few stalwarts to get together and learn it first might well be a highly practical way of helping ensure the absence of that uniquely catholic phenomenen of having the organist (or whatever) play four solo verses of a hymn. and then eventually the persons doing the choosing and the starting and the accompanying and the deputising will grow old and die (apparently this also happens) and we will wonder where the next person is going to come from and find that we haven't got anybody because nobody has made it their business to find people to get involved and train them up.
One of the many good things about a choir is that it is an infrastructure for getting people involved and one that is inherently more resilient in the long term than reliance on just one or two individuals starting the singing. And finally...it can be pretty lonely, rather dispiriting and quite an onerous commitment to be the only person involved. I've been playing for Saturday evening mass for the last six months or so: turn up, open the hymn book, get on with it. Digital instrument, up in a gallery (why? the organ takes up no space at all). Don't feel part of anything. Haven't learned a single name from the congregation. Oops, maybe this drifted a bit off the point - though on reflection it does seem relevant to the thread, if not to M's point.

[docmattc]

One of the many good things about a choir is that it is an infrastructure for getting people involved

It should be, but I'm sure we can all think of churches where the choir is a select, exclusive clique, and one of the most divisive groups in the parish! (but this is not a reason not to have a choir at all, before someone points this out )

And finally...it can be pretty lonely, rather dispiriting and quite an onerous commitment to be the only person involved. I've been playing for Saturday evening mass for the last six months or so: turn up, open the hymn book, get on with it. Digital instrument, up in a gallery (why? the organ takes up no space at all). Don't feel part of anything. Haven't learned a single name from the congregation.

This brings us back to the original point about positioning. The organist (and choir) are primarily a part of the congregation. They are not outsiders providing a service (which is what you feel like up in a loft on your own) and not an entertainment. Being in a loft might be great acoustically, but is isolated from the community (and might this play a part in a choir becoming an exclusive clique? Although I'm sure this isn't true of any SSG member's parish!)

I don't think Merseysider was saying we shouldn't have a choir, but its role is to lead the congregational singing primarily. It shouldn't loose sight of this.

I do want people to participate and sing but the choir must have their role as well

Is this role different than to lead the congregation? Not in my book! Occasionally my choir may sing a solo piece, but this is occasionally. I don't feel I have to justify having a choir by it doing anything other than leading the congregation.